# Pull Request Template
## Description
Fixes: https://github.com/chatwoot/chatwoot/issues/13880
Uses approaches discussed from:
https://github.com/chatwoot/chatwoot/pull/13883
Activity messages pertaining to resolve are included along with an
instruction for the LLM to choose whether to consider them or not along
## Type of change
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details
for your test configuration.
locally and with specs
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [x] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
---------
Co-authored-by: Sony Mathew <sony@chatwoot.com>
## Description
Adds the account-level `unread_count_for_filters` feature flag as the
dark-launch gate for filtered sidebar unread counts. This reuses the
deprecated `quoted_email_reply` flag slot, resets the reused bit for
existing accounts, and removes stale defaults so new accounts do not
reference the old flag.
This also adds the feature where we are now calculating the unread counts for built in filters like mentions, participating and unattended along with unread count for saved filters/folders.
Closes
[CW-7262](https://linear.app/chatwoot/issue/CW-7262/unread-counts-for-filters-folders)
## Type of change
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality not to work as expected)
- [ ] This change requires a documentation update
# Pull Request Template
## Description
This is the second PR in a series of PRs for Introducing unread counts
in the sidebar for inboxes and labels.
In this PR:
* added api for unread counts
* Added the store refresher and invalidation with event listeners
* Added action cable event
* Added specs for the changes
Issue:
https://linear.app/chatwoot/issue/CW-6851/support-unread-conversation-counts
## Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality not to work as expected)
- [ ] This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details
for your test configuration.
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [ ] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
---------
Co-authored-by: Sojan Jose <sojan@pepalo.com>
## Description
Fix a Postgres planner trap on the "Pending Response: Longest first"
sort that causes the conversation list to hang on busy accounts.
The current `sort_on_waiting_since` generates query with `ORDER BY
waiting_since ASC NULLS LAST, created_at ASC`. That order-by is exactly
the shape of the single-column `index_conversations_on_waiting_since`
btree, so the planner picks a forward index walk thinking `LIMIT 25`
will stop early. In practice the per-account matches are spread along
the global waiting_since timeline, so the scan reads tens of millions of
rows from other accounts and discards them via the filter before
producing any results which in turn causes the requests to time out and
the conversation list spinner never resolves.
DESC direction and every other sort (`priority`, `created_at`,
`last_activity_at`) are unaffected. They fall through to
`conv_acid_inbid_stat_asgnid_idx` (account-scoped composite), which is
the right index for this access pattern.
This change leads the ORDER BY with the expression `(waiting_since IS
NULL)`, which no column-only btree can satisfy. The planner falls back
to the same account-scoped index used by every other sort, and sorts in
memory. Same logical NULLS LAST output for both directions; no behavior
change for users.
Fixes CW-6965
## Type of change
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality not to work as expected)
- [ ] This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
- [x] Existing specs pass
- [x] Added new specs to cover NULL case
- [x] Verify results and order for old and new query in prod
- [x] Tested in prod since staging data was not sufficient
`EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)` for the same query (status=0, ASC, LIMIT
25) on a representative production account, before vs after:
| Metric | Before | After |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Execution time | 34,679 ms | 0.71 ms |
| Rows discarded by filter | 36,906,962 | 0 |
| Shared buffer hits | 12,699,924 | 11 |
| Blocks read from disk | 851,226 | 112 |
| I/O read time | 17,785 ms | 0.3 ms |
| Pages dirtied / written | 98 / 31,043 | 0 / 0 |
Verified on two production accounts: identical row IDs in identical
order between the old and new ORDER BY for both ASC and DESC. A
NULL-bucket regression spec was added covering ASC/DESC tail ordering
when some conversations have a null `waiting_since`.
Roughly `49,000×` faster on this query (34,679 ms → 0.71 ms), and
trivially less I/O and buffer pressure on the cluster while it runs.
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [ ] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
Co-authored-by: Tanmay Deep Sharma <32020192+tds-1@users.noreply.github.com>
## Linear Ticket
https://linear.app/chatwoot/issue/CW-4569/nomethoderror-undefined-method-blocked-for-nil-nomethoderror
## Description
Fixes NoMethodError in ConversationMuteHelpers that occurs during
contact deletion race condition.
When a contact is deleted, there's a brief window (~50-150ms) where
contact_id becomes nil but conversations still exist. If ResolutionJob
runs during this window, the muted? method crashes trying to call
blocked? on nil.Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Created orphaned conversations (contact_id = nil)
- Called muted?, mute!, unmute! - all return gracefully
- Verified async deletion still works correctly
## Checklist:
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [ ] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
Co-authored-by: Sojan Jose <sojan@pepalo.com>
When AgentBot responds to customer messages, the `waiting_since`
timestamp is not reset, causing inflated reply time metrics when a human
agent eventually responds. This results in inaccurate reporting that
incorrectly includes periods when customers were satisfied with bot
responses.
### Timeline from Production Data
```
Dec 12, 16:20:14 - Customer sends message (ID: 368451924)
↓ waiting_since = Dec 12, 16:20:14
Dec 12, 16:20:17 - AgentBot replies (ID: 368451960)
↓ waiting_since STILL = Dec 12, 16:20:14 ❌
↓ (Bot response doesn't clear it)
14-day gap - Customer satisfied, no messages
↓ waiting_since STILL = Dec 12, 16:20:14 ❌
Dec 26, 22:25:45 - Customer sends new message (ID: 383522275)
↓ waiting_since STILL = Dec 12, 16:20:14 ❌
↓ (New message doesn't reset it)
Dec 26-27 - More AgentBot interactions
↓ waiting_since STILL = Dec 12, 16:20:14 ❌
Dec 27, 07:36:53 - Human agent finally replies (ID: 383799517)
↓ Reply time calculated: 1,268,404 seconds
↓ = 14.7 DAYS ❌
```
## Root Cause
The core issues is in `app/models/message.rb`, where **AgentBot messages
does not clear `waiting_since`** - The `human_response?` method only
returns true for `User` senders, so bot replies never trigger the
clearing logic. This means once `waiting_since` is set, it stays set
even when customers send new messages after receiving bot responses.
The solution is to simply reset `waiting_since` **after a bot has
responded**. This ensures reply time metrics reflect actual human agent
response times, not bot-handled periods.
### What triggers the rest
This is an intentional "gotcha", that only `AgentBot` and
`Captain::Assistant` messages trigger the waiting time reset. Automation
and campaign messages maintain current behavior (no reset). This is
because interactive bot assistants provide conversational help that
might satisfy customers. Automation and campaigns are one-way
communications and shouldn't affect waiting time calculations.
## Related Work
Extends PR #11787 which fixed `waiting_since` clearing on conversation
resolution. This PR addresses the bot interaction scenario which was not
covered by that fix.
Scripts to clean data:
https://gist.github.com/scmmishra/bd133208e219d0ab52fbfdf03036c48a
## Summary
- add an assignee_agent_bot_id column as an initital step to prototype
this before fully switching to polymorphic assignee
- update assignment APIs and conversation list / show endpoints to
reflect assignee as agent bot
- ensure webhook payloads contains agent bot assignee
[Codex
Task](https://chatgpt.com/codex/tasks/task_e_6912833377e48326b6641b9eee32d50f)
---------
Co-authored-by: Pranav <pranav@chatwoot.com>
The test was failing because Current.contact was not being cleared when
testing system auto-resolution. Added Current.contact = nil to ensure
the system auto-resolution message is triggered instead of contact
resolution.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)
# Pull Request Template
## Description
Please include a summary of the change and issue(s) fixed. Also, mention
relevant motivation, context, and any dependencies that this change
requires.
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality not to work as expected)
- [ ] This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details
for your test configuration.
## Checklist:
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [ ] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Muhsin Keloth <muhsinkeramam@gmail.com>
- Add support for using labels as an action event for automation
- Fix duplicated conversation_updated event dispatch for labels
Fixes https://github.com/chatwoot/chatwoot/issues/8539 and multiple
issues around duplication related to label change events.
---------
Co-authored-by: Muhsin Keloth <muhsinkeramam@gmail.com>
This PR fixes the reply time calculation for reopened conversations.
Previously, when a customer sent a message to reopen a resolved
conversation, the reply time metric would be calculated incorrectly
because the `waiting_since` timestamp was not properly set before the
reply event was dispatched. This would create a case where you'd have
reporting events like the following
```
[[33955732, "reply_time", 19.0],
[33955847, "reply_time", 24.0],
[33955666, "reply_time", 89.0],
[33955530, "conversation_bot_handoff", 4.0],
[33955567, "first_response", 42.0],
[33955745, "reply_time", 21.0],
[33955934, "reply_time", 49.0],
[33955906, "reply_time", 121.0],
[33987938, "conversation_resolved", 26285.0],
[35571005, "reply_time", 985492.0]]
```
Note the `reply_time` after `conversation_resolved`
The fix ensures that `waiting_since` is correctly updated when
conversations are reopened, either through incoming messages or manual
status changes, resulting in accurate reply time metrics that measure
only the time from the customer's new message to the agent's response.
## Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
The changes have been tested with comprehensive specs that verify:
1. **Reply time calculation after conversation reopening** - Ensures
correct timestamps are used when calculating reply times for reopened
conversations
2. **Waiting since updates on status changes** - Verifies that
`waiting_since` is properly set when conversation status changes from
resolved to open
3. **Test the happy path** - Happy path is tested to ensure the
`reply_time` and `first_response_time` is correctly calculated
Test instructions:
1. Create a conversation with the last message from a customer and
resolve it
2. Have an agent reopen it and reply to it
4. When an agent replies, verify that the agent reply_time event is not
created for this message
To fix any existing data, I've written a small script:
https://gist.github.com/scmmishra/fdf458863f2d971978327bbfd5232d0c
---------
Co-authored-by: Muhsin Keloth <muhsinkeramam@gmail.com>
…on (#11584)"
This reverts commit b5ebc47637.
# Pull Request Template
## Description
Please include a summary of the change and issue(s) fixed. Also, mention
relevant motivation, context, and any dependencies that this change
requires.
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality not to work as expected)
- [ ] This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details
for your test configuration.
## Checklist:
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [ ] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
Fixes https://github.com/chatwoot/chatwoot/issues/11569
## Problem
On platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, customers cannot
reply to messages after 24 hours (or other channel-specific messaging
windows). Despite this limitation, the system continued sending CSAT
surveys to customers outside their messaging window, making it
impossible for them to respond.
## Solution
Added a check for `conversation.can_reply?` in the
`should_send_csat_survey?` method. This leverages the existing
`MessageWindowService` which already handles all channel-specific
messaging window logic.
### Summary
- Converts conversation auto-resolution duration from days to minutes
for more
granular control
- Updates validation to allow values from 10 minutes (minimum) to 999
days (maximum)
- Implements smart messaging to show appropriate time units in activity
messages
### Changes
- Created migration to convert existing durations from days to minutes
(x1440)
- Updated conversation resolver to use minutes instead of days
- Added dynamic translation key selection based on duration value
- Updated related specs and documentation
- Added support for displaying durations in days, hours, or minutes
based on value
### Test plan
- Verify account validation accepts new minute-based ranges
- Confirm existing account settings are correctly migrated
- Test auto-resolution works properly with minute values
- Ensure proper time unit display in activity messages
---------
Co-authored-by: Sivin Varghese <64252451+iamsivin@users.noreply.github.com>
The payload does not include last_activity_at when the conversation is created. Because of this the frontend is not able to sort the conversations when appending this. Another problem is that the last_activity_at is not always present, it is added only when a message is created, and it updates it. So this can be nil when the conversation is created, so we fallback to created_at only at the presentation layer
We observed some race condition errors in the conversation participation listener while trying to create a conversation participation assignment. This PR handles this error and also adds additional debug information for future.
fixes: https://linear.app/chatwoot/issue/CW-3296/activerecordrecordnotunique-pguniqueviolation-error-duplicate-key
## Changelog
- handles `ActiveRecord::RecordNotUnique, ActiveRecord::RecordInvald` errors so that they won't pollute sentry
- Adds a debug statement to log the cases
- Add previous_changes into the dispatcher so that we know the exact attribute changes which trigger `assignee_changed, team_changed` events ( would be handy in future )
This PR addresses several items listed in our rubocop_todo by implementing the necessary corrections and enhancements. As a result, we are now able to remove the rubocop_todo file entirely, streamlining our codebase and ensuring adherence to our coding standards.
fixes: https://linear.app/chatwoot/issue/CW-1806/chore-rubocop-audit
- The cache stores the labels as label1, label2. Without removing the whitespace, the output of cached_label_list_array would be [label1, [whitespace]label2], which doesn't match with the existing labels. This list is returned with proper label names.
* feat: update seed script to include prioritt
* feat: add sort_handler for conversations
* test: sort on priority order
---------
Co-authored-by: Muhsin Keloth <muhsinkeramam@gmail.com>
